TribesIf you stand back a little from that statement it sounds like Government saved the RAAF from an essentially superfluous contest, that if concluded could have locked Australia into operating a 1990’s technology fighter for the next 25 years.
Once the JSF as clearly defined, why would Aus want to buy a fleet of semi-mature EFs of Rafaels that one day might provide the all round capability that the RAAF needs and the F-35 provides?
3rd January 2009 03:17Is not ANYONE CAPABLE OF seeing what is being said????
Lets SPELL IT OUT….The F-35 WAS NOT OFFERED TO THE RAAF….
The F-35 was not on the Air6000 shortlist…..
There was only ONE prototype in the air at the time…
(semi mature rafale??? and the F-35 is MATURE??? )
The F-35 is going to replace the F-111, a role IT IS NOT SUITED FOR…
The government should NOT be making choices for what it thinks the RAAF needs!
Governments are there to govern…. not RULE
The government of the day then decided without consultation that 24 Super Hornets will be needed as a “stop gap” because the F-111s will be retired well before we receive the F-35. What wonderful forward planning?Again the continual flag waving for the F-35 on this thread and in this forum is beyond a joke…. a debate on here simply goes round and round as those so much in love with the aircraft keep on and on about its wonderful attributes. Do you guys get paid by the thread?
There fact remains the government of the day lied and went behind the backs of everyone…. but this doesnt matter a damn to some does it?
But F-35 was subsequently offered to the RAAF. So it wasn’t on the Air 6000 shortlist – does that just meant that air 6000 was launched prematurely?
So EF or Rafael would have been an effective F-111 replacement??????? What does either offer in a strike role that Block II F-18F doesn’t? Non-AESA MSA radar perhaps? 😀
TribesPut entirely simply, every source that you can find on the subject attributes the purpose entirely to the Australian government and not any branch of the RAAF or ADF. If those who claim otherwise would care to provide one that does not say this then perhaps I’d be willing to listen.
There is one very simple argument for the RAAF’s total non-involvement; they were involved in the AIR-6000 plan which did not include JSF. The plan was ditched when they announced the plan to sign on to the program. Why would Defence ditch their own project and not announce it themselves? They wouldn’t. And didn’t. The Government bought into JSF with minimal advisory input from anyone in the defence department, let alone the RAAF itself, and in doing so scuppered the Air Force’s plans. How much more evidence is needed before it becomes entirely undeniable?
If you stand back a little from that statement it sounds like Government saved the RAAF from an essentially superfluous contest, that if concluded could have locked Australia into operating a 1990’s technology fighter for the next 25 years.
Once the JSF as clearly defined, why would Aus want to buy a fleet of semi-mature EFs of Rafaels that one day might provide the all round capability that the RAAF needs and the F-35 provides?
TribesPut entirely simply, every source that you can find on the subject attributes the purpose entirely to the Australian government and not any branch of the RAAF or ADF. If those who claim otherwise would care to provide one that does not say this then perhaps I’d be willing to listen.
There is one very simple argument for the RAAF’s total non-involvement; they were involved in the AIR-6000 plan which did not include JSF. The plan was ditched when they announced the plan to sign on to the program. Why would Defence ditch their own project and not announce it themselves? They wouldn’t. And didn’t. The Government bought into JSF with minimal advisory input from anyone in the defence department, let alone the RAAF itself, and in doing so scuppered the Air Force’s plans. How much more evidence is needed before it becomes entirely undeniable?
If you stand back a little from that statement it sounds like Government saved the RAAF from an essentially superfluous contest, that if concluded could have locked Australia into operating a 1990’s technology fighter for the next 25 years.
Once the JSF as clearly defined, why would Aus want to buy a fleet of semi-mature EFs of Rafaels that one day might provide the all round capability that the RAAF needs and the F-35 provides?
TribesIts scary just how far off beam this thread is flying….. 😮
TribesIts scary just how far off beam this thread is flying….. 😮
Tribes2007 Sep 03 ~ Sep 20, Skylance 07 exercise:
Blue team: Eurofighter
Red team: Tornado F3 and Hawk with unlimited reborn capability.
The final exchange rate –> 49 (Red) : 1 (Blue)
Eurofighters against trainers (Hawks).:eek: Why was it only 49 to 1.
TribesEdited – never mind, found my answer.
Although, I must admit I’m a bit confused by this comment:
Australia always planned on keeping the Super Hornets. It’s not like we were going to lease the things for six billion dollars. Just because they were there to bridge a (fictitious, or at least completely unimportant if you ask me) capability gap until the entry of the Lighting II doesn’t mean we were just planning on dispensing with them as soon as we take delivery of the F-35s. There was no ‘plan B’ – the Howard government set out air force up for one plane and one plane only, the F-35, and these were a ‘band-aid solution’ to their taking the F-111s out of service before we’d get a replacement.
But the first time the F-35 fleet is grounded, the RAAF will be glad it has F-18Fs on the flightline.
TribesI think you miss the point, you are suggesting that the US has built a Raptor clone ability wise in the JSF, if the F-35 is all you say it is then the F-22 is obsolete!!.
Cheers
But you don’t see any rush to extend the F-22 buy much beyond current numbers, do you? Maybe the F-22 will soon be, if not obsolete then at least no longer unchallenged.
TribesHmm
A – As far as i know Norway Did say both aircraft met the capability requirement in the beginning.B -If the Eurofighter didn’t meet the requirements, -then why did Norway ask them to join and re-join to begin with ? I also doubt Gripen is better vs EF in terms of capability except for perhaps range without droptanks.
C – What possible commercial interests does Janes have in what aircraft Norway chooses ?
D -I think Cliff Barnes is right on spot on this issue, tho JR is arguably better at oil business
A – But that’s a different issue than calculating what number of aircraft and/or flight hours that are required to provide the capability needed to deal with a certain scenario or set of scenarios.
B – Perhaps I should have said didn’t meet them as well. If Norway wanted a first day of the war strike aircraft, sure EF could do the job but presumably not to the level a F-35 could.
C – Ownership crossholdings, and advertising sales.
TribesThe question here is – are the accusations unfounded? You think so and I beg to disagree.
A) When the swedish government calculates operational costs based on expericence of 120 000 logged flight hours of their Gripens and the norwegian government comes up with operational costs 250% higher than – this you get confused.
B) When you add the fact that Eurofighter team left the tender because they thought it was biased in favor of the winner JSF – you get even more interested.
C) On top of this experts from for example Jane’s thought that Gripen NG suited Norwegian needs better than JSF.
Don’t get me wrong. Norway has all the rights to choose whatever fighter you want. But if you want to go for a political choice rather than a fair tender – tell your neighbours and friends – and stand up for that decision.
An alternative way at looking at it:
A – the Norwegians calculated the cost of a certain level of capability they required. This is not the same as a simple metric of limited use, like cost per flight hour per aircraft.
B – the Eurofghter simply did not meet the technical requirements the Norwegians had set. Do the Norwegians need to consider a less capable aircraft?
C – Janes is only a magazine, which of course has its own commercial interests to focus on along with and a limited appreciation of the requirements and operational doctrine of the Norwegians (and other airforces)
TribesIs the “Block 3” Shornet clearly defined yet? What is it to entail?
Currently a Boeing sales pitch for extra sales: http://aviamagazine.xs4all.nl/news/readnews.aspx?id=265
TribesHi,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/gao/d04900.pdf
My understanding is also that the eurocanards shortly will be at least as capable as SH block II (once they get their AESA radars, IRST sensors, etc. etc.)
By which time the SH will be at Block 3.
TribesSo what happens now to those monthly “lets club the Super Hornet” threads? I found them entertaining. 😀
TribesThe F-18E, of any block, is single-seat. Only the F-18F is two-seat, & AFAIK the majority of Super Hornets built to date, & planned for the future, are E.
Check out the information available at the Boeing site:
“
• Operational in 9 U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wings (19 squadrons)
• 367 Super Hornets have been delivered as of Sept. 1, 2008
o 203 F-model Super Hornets
o 164 E-model Super Hornets “
Those aircraft are nearly all Block 1, so that ratio may change with the Block 2.
The Aus order is all F-18F
TribesFor example, by many measures the Super Hornet can be bested by other extant fighters. But when considered in terms consonant with the six items listed above, I believe it is safe to say that it is 1)the most capable carrier fighter in the world, and 2) sufficiently capable of putting up one hell of a fight against many land based air forces. And I’m not saying that as a SH fanboy, just trying to cite an example.
But with its APG 79 and application of stealth technology (realistically, bettered only by the F-22 and the still in development F-35), the shoot first window opened up for a Block 2 SH renders the “better” airframe performance of some of its contemporaries irrelevant.
Sign In
